Ars Technica - When religion and games intersect-and how it often goes badly.In fact, religion seems to be such a taboo subject to include in video games that the only type of faith that really appears in titles here in the US is Christianity. Even then, the subject is often poorly addressed in games that are themselves poorly made. But why is it that religious content is so sparse in the realm of video games? The reasons are largely based on contention between religious and industry leaders, as well as the fact that you'll rarely find a topic as personal as faith.

Gamasutra - The Evolution Of The Class System In Games. Thanks Joker961.This concept of min/maxing was something that grew out of the character design method of D&D. Depending on the character a player wanted, they could throw all of their weakness onto an irrelevant stat and turn themselves into a monster. TF2 characters are premade with this design in mind, so thereís less room for play customization, but less worry about game balance.

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Feb 11, 2010, 09:35:So evolution is false because it doesn't make the claims you think it should make?

No, vertical speciation by only random, natural processes is nonsense because as you admit, no one has or can observe it, ever.

You can't verify or falsify what you can't observe.

Science is about evidence, and you continually demand that we should only be able to consider one type of evidence.

No, I continually point out that what you call "evidence" is actually observed similarities ASSUMED to be descent. Fossils don't reproduce. You're only guessing at what gave birth to what.

It's like saying that we can't determine what created a crater because nobody actually saw it being created. Utterly ridiculous.

Comparing a hole in the ground to the vast complexity of Life? That is ridiculous.

No, we shouldn't be able to observe evidence in the way you say we should because that's not how it works, and no theory claims it works that way.

Direct observation is "not how it works"? And you claim I don't understand science?

It seems to work for those demonstrating the reliability of molecular phylogenetic method. As I noted previously, observable fact is only useful to the Darwinist until either their presence or their absence get in the way of their fairy tale.

Nothing of a different "kind" just springs up from an existing "kind".

Absolutely! Thank you!

Everything is always directly related to what it was born from.

Entirely correct! Well done!

Only through the various conditions described in the pages I've linked to are populations able to change sufficiently over a very large number of generations that they don't much resemble those organisms that they descended from.

That is assumed/wished for/speculated, not observed.

They'll still share certain basic characteristics, but they'll also have many other different ones.

Shared similarities do not necessarily indicate ancestry.

That's kind of why it takes A Really Long Time to see the kind of difference between a species and its ancestors

You hope/wish/pray.

that you claim is not possible.

I'm claiming that scientifically-speaking, we have not only no evidence for it, but the evidence we do possess indicates a different process.

the fossil record shows exactly this

That similarities are observed among organisms is not in dispute. What I've been pointing out is that you are ASSUMING that, based on similarities in structure, one animal gave birth (eventually) to another. Until such a thing is observed, you're just making things up. Arguing that something is true that no one can ever observe is irrational and unscientific.

You try to wave away the evidence by not understanding the methods used or how those methods were verified.

You try to say it's all just guesswork. You can't back either of these claims up though.

Then you should be able to produce direct observation of it, instead of offering evidence of lateral speciation, similarities in code, structure, or function, etc.

You have no theory that fits the evidence better. You have no leg to stand on.

None but the observable facts regarding Life, which you mock nesciently.

No, but a reader who is completely ignorant about the science and incapable of understanding how scientific methodologies are verified even after reading it in plain English could certainly believe that.

Don't be mad because what you assumed was proof of your creation story admits its own uselessness for such a purpose.

Eviscerations, huh? Really, no.

You're the one having convulsions, not me. You're the one resorting to name-calling and impugning my intellect and integrity. If you had the facts on your side, you wouldn't be panicking.

you still don't understand what you're reading is made painfully obvious by your vague claims that the methodologies described "have to do with observable" yadda yadda...

That's funny . . . and ironic. You claim that I can't read, but your source says that the relationships were directly observed.

Watching you implode in defense of the indefensible makes me sad.

You don't even understand what's being described there and what the relationship to observable descent is in the experiments they are talking about.

That direct observation was used to confirm the usefulness of molecular phylogenetic methods in determining phylogenies is not evidence of vertical speciation by only random, natural processes.

Obviously, I do understand, which is why you're upset.

The fact that you can't bring yourself to watch even a couple of videos because they so offend your delicate sensibilities and threaten your worldview is telling.

("Telling" is my word.)

So, is this another one of your misreadings, misrememberings, or misrepresentations? I told you early on that seeing that the first few minutes of your video was full of logical fallacies, I didn't want to waste my time.

It's a simple matter of logic: Claiming that creationists are idiots and then rebutting straw men does not prove abiogenesis or vertical speciation by only random, natural processes.

What does it say about your creation myth that calling people dumb is its best defense?

So I resort to links to text, which you then proceed to select words and phrases from randomly and declare that the text says something completely different from what it says.

Not "randomly." I'm merely pointing out aspects of your excerpts and links which, in your religious fervor, you ignore.

Hopefully there are actually honest readers out there, but you certainly aren't among them.

That's the pot calling the china "black."

I've explained several ways to falsify it

Whatever you're falsifying, it's not vertical speciation by only random, natural processes, because -- as you admit -- we can't observe it, ever.

I think you knocked yourself out there . . . You should probably stay down. Throw in the towel.

Trying to co-opt someone else's metaphor is often a bad idea.

So, are you going to finally excoriate TalkOrigins over their embarrassing ignorance as noted below? You said that I "don't get it" because I pointed out that you're ASSUMING descent relationships that you can't observe, ever. Well, it appears that they're making the same mistake.

Having slain and buried Darwinism's creation myth, you dig up the corpse and defile it vigorously with this:

"Phylogenetic trees are a convenient way of visually representing the evolutionary history of life. These diagrams illustrate the inferred relationships between organisms and the order of speciation events that led from earlier common ancestors to their diversified descendants."

"The Christian religion, when ... brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."